• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Does more CPU cache give a better performance?

R3X

R3X

R3X

Permabanned
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
3,623
Never owned X58/X79 platforms with higher end intel cpus just wondered if these intel cpus with 12meg and more cache offer better performance then say over the older gen 3770k/4770/4790k series 8meg cache?

And where is this performance seen also in multi-tasking or loading times?

Am considering 4790k or the newer 5820K haswell e
 
I wouldn't think the cache would make the difference, it's still only 2 meg/core, theres just 2 more cores = the extra 4 meg cache.

Think the extra performance would come from the cores themselves, but might be wrong
 
It can make difference in cpu intensive tasks including games (provided it's cpu bound) but the benefits of extra CPU cache wouldn't factor into my buying decision.
 
Thanks for answer

Yes I think your right its perhaps not the cache itself since its just each cpu with its own cache and its down to perhaps just the cores giving the extra performance.

Looking forward to this friday :)
 
it makes a difference yes, but not nearly as much as overclocking.

compared to a 4770 ? .... the newer CPU will be about the same, it depends how far you can overclock the older 4770 I suppose, but you deffo wont notice a thing in gaming.... because the newer cpu is only worth buying if your 4770 is a dog that's stuck at 4.3
 
R3X said:
Never owned X58/X79 platforms with higher end intel cpus just wondered if these intel cpus with 12meg and more cache offer better performance then say over the older gen 3770k/4770/4790k series 8meg cache?

And where is this performance seen also in multi-tasking or loading times?

Am considering 4790k or the newer 5820K haswell e
Click to expand...

If you can afford a X99 Hexcore (Haswell-E) then it's worth it imo. Many games/applications love the extra cache. Not to mention the two extra cores you get, which are a massive advantage and completely trump the 4790K in the latest games.
 
does cache make a difference?

yes

next stupid question...

dont listen to anyone claiming otherwise they dont know how cpus work. Cache makes up a lot of the performance of a CPU, just take a look at i3 at 3mb cache and i5 at 6mb cache...

only comparing single core performance and the i5 tramples the i3...

yet this is why the i5 and i7 single core performance is very similar, the cache is similar - it is not double therefore less data is passed comparing to difference in rank but a 2mb difference is a 2mb difference and therefore the i7 beats the i5

it is why xeon processors are really good at beating desktop processors at their given design more than the number of cores.

l3 cache is shared between each core BUT that does not mean a single core that is soley used cannot use all of the l3 cache. It just depends on the application...
 
Last edited:
Hi R3X, thanks for asking this question (I didn't think it was stupid, response has been informative), have been wondering the same.

Can't make my mind up on whether to upgrade now or wait for X99. Decisions, decisions.....:)
 
My 2p

The Cache size definitely does make a difference

It makes a much bigger difference when it comes to smaller caches but less so with bigger caches and newer, faster CPUs

I will give you a few perfect examples...

AMD XP2200 and the BARTON 2500
The Barton was massively quicker and yet they were both 1.8Ghz
The XP had a 256K cache while the barton had 512K

The old Pentium vs Celeron - Which is better?
Clock for clock they were absolutely identical and yet the Celeron had a much smaller cache and as such, it was almost useless in comparison with the Pentium equivalent. This is still true to this day. The Celeron cored intels are disgustingly slow and yet clock for clock, they are the exact same performing CPUs as their Pentium counterparts

Ask yourself... Do you own a Celeron? Why not? Its all down to the cache.

Also for more newer stuff, the I3 vs I5 - they are clock for clock the same, but even if you use only one core, the I5 wipes the floor with the i3 and again, its down to cache

With some of todays bigger CPUs however, they quite often have fairly huge caches and so there may not be much of a difference between say a 4MB cache and an 8MB cache, but when it comes to small caches, it can be the difference between light and day.

So a simple answer to the question is that YES, cache does make a difference.
 
Dave2150 said:
If you can afford a X99 Hexcore (Haswell-E) then it's worth it imo. Many games/applications love the extra cache. Not to mention the two extra cores you get, which are a massive advantage and completely trump the 4790K in the latest games.
Click to expand...

Sorry for asking but do you know or is there a list of games which like more cores? Cheers
 
bigmac121 said:
Sorry for asking but do you know or is there a list of games which like more cores? Cheers
Click to expand...

theres no such thing...

cache is cache and either the cpu has it or not...the cpu will always use cache

it's not like cores. cache is part of how the cpu operates... <_< ffs

the cpu has to grab data from somewhere. The system goes:

CPU gets data from L1 which is fed from L2 which is fed from L3.

if not enough data is in L1 then it gets from L2
if not enough data from L2 then it gets from L3
if not enough data from L3 it gets from RAM
if not enough data from RAM it gets from HDD

each level gets slower and slower. L1 is the fastest. RAM is very very slow in comparison to the caches and the HDD fetch is like snails pace for the cpu
 
Last edited:
Little*Freak said:
Hi R3X, thanks for asking this question (I didn't think it was stupid, response has been informative), have been wondering the same.

Can't make my mind up on whether to upgrade now or wait for X99. Decisions, decisions.....:)
Click to expand...

No worries while it does sound a silly Q and the general answer is yes I was just curious in which situations etc

Guess its good to know the more the better in general and overall ;)
 
Svyper1 said:
theres no such thing...

cache is cache and either the cpu has it or not...the cpu will always use cache

it's not like cores. cache is part of how the cpu operates... <_< ffs

the cpu has to grab data from somewhere. The system goes:

CPU gets data from L1 which is fed from L2 which is fed from L3.

if not enough data is in L1 then it gets from L2
if not enough data from L2 then it gets from L3
if not enough data from L3 it gets from RAM
if not enough data from RAM it gets from HDD

each level gets slower and slower. L1 is the fastest. RAM is very very slow in comparison to the caches and the HDD fetch is like snails pace for the cpu
Click to expand...

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but does that mean that an increase in RAM speed would have a greater benefits on processors with small cache?

Has anyone tryed testing the benefits of RAM speed on processors with low amounts of cache (All the tests I've seen tend to be with i7s)?

Also has anyone tested the advantages of RAM speed where the CPU is the bottleneck in the system during gaming?
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but does that mean that an increase in RAM speed would have a greater benefits on processors with small cache?

Has anyone tryed testing the benefits of RAM speed on processors with low amounts of cache (All the tests I've seen tend to be with i7s)?

Also has anyone tested the advantages of RAM speed where the CPU is the bottleneck in the system during gaming?
Click to expand...

Almost certainly "no", but they're great questions I would also love to know the answers to.
 
Svyper1 said:
theres no such thing...

cache is cache and either the cpu has it or not...the cpu will always use cache

it's not like cores. cache is part of how the cpu operates... <_< ffs

the cpu has to grab data from somewhere. The system goes:

CPU gets data from L1 which is fed from L2 which is fed from L3.

if not enough data is in L1 then it gets from L2
if not enough data from L2 then it gets from L3
if not enough data from L3 it gets from RAM
if not enough data from RAM it gets from HDD

each level gets slower and slower. L1 is the fastest. RAM is very very slow in comparison to the caches and the HDD fetch is like snails pace for the cpu
Click to expand...

Thanks bro. Been building since 286 dx days but never looked into this.
 
Other then WinRar (that accessing a lot of memory), the real world difference between 1333 and 2400 DDR 3 is about 1%.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6372/...-to-ddr32400-on-ivy-bridge-igp-with-gskill/11

Why is 1333 and 2400 only around 1% difference in most situations? Simple it's because of the cache, and the larger the cache the more chance of cache hits.

CPU registers (fastest)
Level 1 cache
Level 2 cache
Level 3 cache
DDR
HDD / SSD (slowest)

When you first switch on your computer all storage is present in HDD / SSD only. However as the computer runs it moves frequent accessed memory closer up the hierarchy of storage. The levels of memory speed above, allow many GB / TB of programs/data to be stored on the HDD/SSD, yet due to the cache levels, there is minimum latency when the CPU executes. The CPU cache controller, and memory management of modern operating system make this possible.

The early PC's used an 8086 CPU that had no cache. Back then memory speed was really important, computers were even advertised with '0 wait state memory' meaning that the CPU did not wait additional clock cycles while memory was accessed. Back then fit the wrong memory speed and you cripple a computer, today you struggle to even notice faster RAM and it's all down to the caching system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom